maine department of t bridge program geotechnical … · 2014. 4. 1. · maine department of...

MAINE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE PROGRAM

GEOTECHNICAL SECTION AUGUSTA, MAINE

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT

For the Replacement of:

HASKELL BRIDGE ROUTE 23 OVER HASKELL BROOK

CANAAN, MAINE

Prepared by:

Michael J. Moreau, P.E. Geotechnical Design Engineer

Reviewed by:

Laura Krusinski, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Somerset County Soils Report No. 2010-33 PIN 16692.00 Bridge No. 3496

Fed No. BR-1669(200)X December 21, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY............................................................................1

1.0 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................4

2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING.................................................................................................4

3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION .............................................................................4

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING ..........................................................................................5

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................5

5.1 GRANULAR FILL............................................................................................................5 5.2 GLACIOMARINE SAND, SILT AND CLAY ........................................................................6 5.3 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................7

6.0 FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVES..............................................................................7

7.0 FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................7

7.1 BOX CULVERT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ................................................................7 7.2 CULVERT HEADWALLS..................................................................................................8 7.3 BOX CULVERT BEARING RESISTANCE...........................................................................9 7.4 SETTLEMENT.................................................................................................................9 7.5 SCOUR PROTECTION......................................................................................................9 7.6 FROST PROTECTION ....................................................................................................10 7.7 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................10 7.8 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..............................................................................10

7.8.1 Excavation........................................................................................................ 10 7.8.2 Dewatering ....................................................................................................... 10 7.8.3 Reuse of Excavated Soil................................................................................... 11 7.8.4 Embankment Fill Areas.................................................................................... 11 7.8.5 Erosion Control Recommendations ................................................................. 11

8.0 CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................12

References Sheets Sheet 1 - Site Location Map Sheet 2 - Boring Location Plan and Interpretive Subsurface Profile Sheet 3 - Boring Logs Appendices Appendix A - Boring Logs Appendix B - Laboratory Test Data Appendix C - Calculations Appendix D - Special Provision

Haskell Bridge Over Haskell Brook Canaan, Maine PIN 16692.00

GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY This report provides geotechnical recommendations for the replacement of Haskell Bridge over Haskell Brook in Canaan, Maine. The proposed replacement structure will be a 9-foot high by 20-foot wide concrete box culvert with one foot of stream bed soil placed in the bottom. The new box culvert will be installed during a one-week road closure. The structure will include a minor widening to 30 feet rail to rail width with 11-foot travel lanes, 4-foot shoulders and accommodation for guardrail. No significant horizontal alignment changes are planned but the vertical alignment will be lowered approximately 6 inches. The design and construction recommendations below are discussed in greater detail in Section 7.0 Foundation Considerations and Recommendations. Box Culvert Design and Construction – The concrete box culvert will be supplier-designed and the design shall consider all relevant strength and service limit state load combinations in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Edition, 2010 (herein referred to as LRFD). The culvert will be constructed in general conformance with the MaineDOT Bridge Design Guide (BDG) Section 8, Buried Structures, and Special Provision 534, Precast Structural Concrete Arches, Box Culverts. A copy of the special provision is presented in Appendix D, Special Provision. The box culvert designer may assume Soil Type 4 (BDG Section 3.6.1) for backfill soil properties. The backfill properties are as follows: = 32 degrees, γ = 125 pcf. The box culvert will be bedded on a two foot thick layer of ¾-inch crushed stone reinforced with geogrid and wrapped in geotextile fabric. The culvert soil envelope backfill shall consist of Standard Specification 703.19, Granular Borrow, Material for Underwater Backfill with a maximum particle size of 4.0 inches. Bedding and/or backfill should be placed in lifts 6 to 8 inches thick loose measure and compacted to manufacturer’s specifications, but in no case shall the bedding and/or backfill soil be compacted less than 92 percent of the AASHTO T-180 maximum dry density. Culvert Headwalls – We recommend integral concrete headwalls to prevent crushed stone slope protection from dropping or eroding into the waterway. Culvert headwalls larger than the nominal 1-foot by 1-foot dimension should consider all relevant LRFD strength and service limit states and load combinations and be designed to resist and/or absorb lateral earth loads, a live load surcharge of 250 psf, other vehicular loads, creep, and temperature and shrinkage deformations of the concrete box culverts. Footings for any headwall constructed independently of the box culvert shall be placed no less than 2 feet below the maximum anticipated depth of scour. Culvert headwall sections that are fixed to the box culverts to resist movement should be designed for earth pressure using an at-rest earth pressure coefficient, Ko, of 0.5. Headwall sections that are independent of the box culvert should be designed using the Rankine active earth pressure coefficient, Ka, equal to 0.31. This assumes level backslope. The earth pressure coefficient may change if backslope conditions are different.

1


Box Culvert Bearing Resistance – For this project, the service limit state controls. In our analysis, we determined that a factored bearing resistance of 2.0 ksf should be used to control settlement when analyzing box bottom slabs. In no instance shall the bearing stress exceed the nominal resistance of concrete, which may be taken as 0.3ƒ’c. Settlement – The total opening area for the existing metal culverts and the replacement concrete box culvert is roughly equivalent. The roadway profile grade will be reduced approximately 6 inches. Approximately 5 feet of clay-silt soil will be excavated and replaced with granular materials. Thus, there will be a net unloading at the footing bearing level over a reduced clay-silt layer thickness. Consequently, settlement of the prepared culvert subgrade consisting of compacted fill or native soil will be negligible. Any settlement that does occur will largely occur during construction and post-construction settlement will also be negligible. Scour Protection – The box culverts will be fitted with integral concrete headwalls to prevent crushed stone slope protection from dropping or eroding into the waterway. Inlet and outlet seepage cutoff walls below the culvert will be provided for scour protection. The inlet and outlet cutoff walls should extend below the maximum depth of scour. We recommend that the bridge approach slopes be armored with a 3-foot thick layer of plain riprap adjacent to the culvert openings. The plain riprap shall be underlain by a Class 1 erosion control geotextile and a 1-foot thick layer of cushion material conforming to Standard Specification 703.19, Granular Borrow for Underwater Backfill. Plain riprap shall meet the requirements of 703.26, Plain and Hand Laid Riprap, of Special Provision 703, Aggregates. The riprap slopes should also be constructed in accordance with Special Provision 610, Stone Fill, Riprap, Stone Blanket, and Stone Ditch Protection and be no steeper than a maximum 1.75:1 (H:V) extending from the edge of roadway down to the existing ground surface. The toe of riprap sections shall be constructed 1 foot below the streambed elevation. Frost Protection – If used, foundations placed on fine-grained soils shall be founded a minimum of 4.0 feet below finish exterior grade for frost protection. This minimum embedment depth applies only to foundations placed on soil and not those founded on bedrock. Seismic Design Considerations – Since the buried structure does not cross active faults, no seismic analysis is required. Construction Considerations – Excavation

- Construction of the new concrete box culvert will require soil excavation. Earth support systems may be required. - Protect the excavated subgrade from exposure to water and unnecessary construction traffic. It is imperative that the contractor minimize aggressive excavation action or equipment movement over the clay-silt soil. This will disturb and/or soften the subgrade soil and may create stability problems or result in excessive settlement. Remove and replace water-softened, disturbed, or rutted subgrade soil with compacted gravel borrow.

Dewatering - Control groundwater and surface water infiltration to permit construction in-the-dry.

2


- Cofferdams, temporary ditches, French drains, pumping from sumps, granular drainage blankets, stone ditch protection, or hand-laid riprap with geotextile underlayment may be needed to divert groundwater if significant seepage is encountered during excavation.

Reuse of Excavated Soil and Bedrock - Do not use excavated existing subbase aggregate or approach fill soil for pavement structure construction or to re-base shoulders. Excavated subbase sand and gravel or granular fill may be used as fill below subgrade elevation in fill embankment areas provided all other requirements of MaineDOT Standard Specification Sections 203 and 703 are met.

- Do not use excavated marine clay-silt or silty sand soils for fill anywhere beneath the pavement structure or dressing slopes. Use these soils to dress slopes only below the bottom elevation of the shoulder subbase gravel. - Marine clay-silt and silty sand may be used as common borrow in accordance with MaineDOT Standard Specification Sections 203 and 703. It may be necessary to spread out and dry portions of these soils that are excessively moist.

Embankment Fill Areas - Bench existing fill slope soils in accordance with MaineDOT Standard Specification 203.09, Preparation of Embankment Area, where new fill slope extensions are constructed over existing slopes.

Erosion Control - Use MaineDOT Best Management Practices February 2008 to minimize erosion of fine-grained soils found on the project site.

3


1.0 INTRODUCTION The Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) plans to replace Haskell Bridge carrying Route 23 over Haskell Brook in the Town of Canaan, Somerset County, Maine. We show the project location on Sheet 1, Site Location Map, appended to this report. We conducted subsurface investigations at the site to develop geotechnical recommendations for the structure replacement. This report summarizes our findings, discusses our evaluation of the subsurface conditions and presents our geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the new structure foundations. The existing structure built in 1956 consists of twin elliptical 9½-foot wide by 10½-foot high structural steel multi-plate culverts. The existing culverts are in poor condition with heavy rusting, pitting and holes at both ends of the pipe. The culverts have experienced minor scour problems and occasional channel blockage, and the guardrails are too low due to overlay build up. The structure had a sufficiency rating of 44.7 in 2009. MaineDOT is proposing a 9-foot high by 20-foot wide, concrete box culvert to replace the existing twin pipes. The new box culvert will be on the same horizontal alignment but the vertical alignment will be lowered approximately 6 inches. The new structure will have a rail-to-rail width of 30 feet. Current plans include 11-foot travel lanes, 4-foot shoulders and accommodation for guardrail, construction of integral concrete culvert headwalls and toe walls, and armoring the embankments with riprap.

2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING The Maine Geologic Survey (MGS) “Surficial Geology of Waterville Quadrangle, Maine, Open-File No. 86-51” (1986) indicates that surficial soils in the vicinity of Haskell Bridge consists primarily of glacial marine deposits with numerous nearby eolian, marine sand, and glacial stream soil unit contacts. The predominant native soil units at the site based on our subsurface explorations are glaciomarine which consist of silt, clay and sands. According to the “Bedrock Geologic Map of Maine” MGS (1985), the bedrock at the Haskell Bridge site consists of Silurian age interbedded pelite and limestone and/or dolostone of the Sangerville Formation.

3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION We investigated subsurface conditions at the site by drilling two test borings, BB-CHB-101 and BB-CHB-102. The MaineDOT drill crew conducted the borings on April 6 and 7, 2010. Each of the borings were terminated at a depth of 42 feet below ground surface (bgs) with no refusal. The boring locations and soil profile are shown on Sheet 2, Boring Location Plan and Interpretive Subsurface Profile. Details and sampling methods used, field data obtained, and soil and groundwater conditions encountered are presented on Sheet 3, Boring Logs, and in Appendix A, Boring Logs, provided at the end of this report.

4


The MaineDOT geotechnical team member selected the boring locations and drilling methods, designated the type and depth of sampling techniques, and identified field and laboratory testing requirements. A consultant inspector logged the subsurface conditions encountered on the field logs and tied down the boring locations by taping distances to adjacent site features. The boring locations were later picked up by MaineDOT survey. We used solid stem auger and cased wash boring techniques to conduct the borings. In-situ vane shear tests were made at regular intervals in the soft soil deposits to measure the shear strength of the strata. Soil samples were obtained, where possible, at 5-foot intervals using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) methods. The standard penetration resistances, or N-values, discussed in this report are corrected for average hammer energy transfer. We compute the corrected or, N60-values, by applying an average hammer energy transfer factor of 0.84 to the raw field N-values obtained with the MaineDOT drill rig.

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING We conducted a laboratory soil testing program on selected samples recovered from the test borings to evaluate soil classification, material reuse, and subgrade soil properties. Laboratory testing consisted of ten standard grain size analyses with natural water contents tests, three with hydrometer analysis, two Atterberg limits tests, and one ignition test. We present results of laboratory testing in Appendix B, Laboratory Test Data. The AASHTO and Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) soil classifications and water content data are also presented on the boring logs in Appendix A.

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Regional surficial geology maps show that the bridge site is situated in an area of predominantly glacial marine clay-silts and sands. Other than the upper fill soils, all of the soils we encountered were glaciomarine soil units. The bridge itself is situated at the end of short fill extensions built into the Haskell Brook flood plain. The approach embankment soil consists of 4.3 to 9.5 feet of granular fill overlying 32.5 to 37.7 feet of various glaciomarine sediments. The borings were terminated at a depth of 42 feet bgs in both borings with no refusal. We present a profile depicting the generalized soil stratigraphy at the bridge site on Sheet 2, Boring Location Plan and Interpretive Subsurface Profile, provided at the end of this report. A summary description of the subsurface conditions follows.

5.1 Granular Fill

We encountered granular fill to a depth ranging between approximately 4.3 and 9.5 feet bgs. The granular fill consists of fine to coarse sand, with little gravel to gravelly and trace to some silt. Drill attitude also indicated the presence of cobbles at some locations in the fill. The

5


SPT N60-values in the granular fill ranged from 4 to 39 blows per foot (bpf) indicating that the unit is very loose to dense in consistency. The granular fill samples had water contents ranging between approximately 5 and 9 percent. Grain size analyses conducted on selected samples of the fill soils indicate that the soils are classified as A-1-b and A-2-4 by the AASHTO Classification System and SM under the Unified Soil Classification System.

5.2 Glaciomarine Sand, Silt and Clay

We encountered numerous glaciomarine soil units beneath the approach fills. At BB-CHB-101, we observed the following soil units in downward sequence: 2.2 feet of fine to medium sand, trace silt, 4.5 feet of brown, slightly to moderately plastic, desiccated, over-consolidated clay-silt with trace fine sand, 18 feet of grey, moderately plastic, clay-silt with trace fine sand, followed by 13 feet of fine to medium sand with little silt. At BB-CHB-102, we observed the following soil units in downward sequence: 2.5 feet of fine to medium sandy silt, 9.2 feet of stratified clay-silt, trace fine sand and fine sand with trace silt, and 20.8 feet of fine to medium sand with trace to some silt or fine to medium sand with trace to little gravel, trace coarse sand, trace silt. Vane shear and SPT tests of the brown clay-silt indicate that this soil is medium stiff to very stiff in consistency. Vane shear tests in the grey clay-silt indicate that this soil is soft to medium stiff in consistency. Vane shear tests in the grey clay-silt also indicate that this soil is classified as sensitive to very sensitive based on ratios of undisturbed strength to remolded strength ranging from 5.8 to 14.6. SPT N60-values in the glaciomarine sands ranged between approximately 1 and 17 bpf, indicating that the sands are very loose to medium dense in consistency. The tested grey clay-silt samples had liquid limits ranging between approximately 42 and 43 and plasticity indices ranging between approximately 21 and 23. Natural water contents of the tested grey clay-silt samples ranged between approximately 40 and 44 percent. The natural water contents of the grey clay-silt samples are close to the liquid limit, indicating the soil unit is normally consolidated. Natural water contents of the tested brown clay silt and sandy silt ranged between approximately 31 and 48 percent. Natural water contents of the tested glaciomarine sands ranged between approximately 15 and 21 percent. Grain size analyses indicate that the clay-silt soils are classified as A-4 and A-7-6 by the AASHTO classification system and ML and CL by the Unified Soil Classification System. The glaciomarine sands are classified A-2-4 by the AASHTO classification system and SM by the Unified Soil Classification System.

6


5.3 Groundwater We observed the groundwater level at approximately 10.0 feet bgs in boring BB-CHB-101 and 7.2 feet bgs in BB-CHB-102. However, the groundwater level will fluctuate with seasonal changes, runoff, and adjacent construction activities. For a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions, please refer to Appendix A, Boring Logs, attached to this report.

6.0 FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVES The project team considered three alternate replacement designs: 1) replace in kind with 2-11-foot diameter steel structural plate pipes on top of a base of crushed stone wrapped in geotextile due to poor soil conditions; 2) slip-line the existing pipes with two 9-foot diameter aluminum structural plate pipes, filling the gap between the existing and new pipes with grout; and 3) replace the existing pipes with a 20-foot span, 9-foot rise rectangular concrete box culvert on top of a base of crushed stone wrapped in geotextile due to poor soil conditions and one foot of streambed soil placed in the bottom of the culvert. Survey measurements showed that alternate 2 would not work because the non-uniform existing pipe shape would not allow the smaller pipe to slide into the larger pipe. Alternate 1 was comparable in cost to alternate 3, so the project team selected alternate 3, 9-foot high by 20-foot wide concrete box culvert, for the replacement structure. For a small additional cost, alternate 3 will provide a higher life-cycle cost benefit than replacing in kind. The following section presents geotechnical design recommendations for the concrete box culvert alternate.

7.0 FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The design team has selected a concrete box culvert to replace the structure at the Canaan site. The proposed replacement structure will consist of a 9-foot high by 20-foot wide concrete box culvert filled with one foot of streambed soil. The new box culvert will be on the same horizontal alignment but the vertical alignment will be lowered approximately 6 inches. The new structure will have a rail-to-rail width of 30 feet. Current plans include 11-foot travel lanes, 4-foot shoulders, accommodation for guardrail, construction of integral concrete culvert headwalls, toe walls, and armoring the embankments with riprap. The base of the bottom slab will be buried approximately 2.0 feet. The design methodology used in the following evaluation is referenced from the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 5th Edition, 2010. See Appendix C, Calculations, for supporting documentation for the design parameters discussed below.

7.1 Box Culvert Design and Construction Precast concrete boxes are typically detailed on the contract plans with only the basic layout and required hydraulic opening so that the contractor may choose among available proprietary

7


products. The manufacturer is responsible for the design of the structure in accordance with Special Provision 534, Precast Structural Concrete Arches, Box Culverts, in Appendix D which includes determination of the wall thickness, haunch thickness and reinforcement. The loading specified for the structure should be Modified HL-93 Strength 1, in which the HL-93 wheel loads are increased by a factor of 1.25. The designer should use Soil Type 4 as presented in Section 3.6, Earth Loads, of the BDG to design earth loads from the soil envelope. The Soil Type properties are as follows: = 32 degrees, γ = 125 pcf. The concrete box culverts will be supplier-designed for all relevant strength and service limit states and load combinations specified in LRFD Article 3.4.1, and LRFD Section 12. The culverts will be constructed in general conformance with BDG Section 8, Buried Structures, and Special Provision 534, Precast Structural Concrete Arches, Box Culverts. The box culvert will be bedded on a two foot thick layer of ¾-inch crushed stone reinforced with geogrid and wrapped in geotextile fabric. The soil envelope and backfill shall consist of Standard Specification 703.19, Granular Borrow, Material for Underwater Backfill with a maximum particle size of 4.0 inches. The crushed stone bedding should be placed in 12-inch thick maximum lifts and compacted with a minimum of four passes of a large walk-behind compactor. The granular borrow backfill should be placed in lifts 6 to 8 inches thick loose measure and compacted to manufacturer’s specifications, but in no case shall the backfill soil be compacted less than 92 percent of the AASHTO T-180 maximum dry density.

7.2 Culvert Headwalls We recommend integral concrete headwalls with nominal 1-foot by 1-foot dimensions to prevent crushed stone slope protection from dropping or eroding into the waterway. Culvert headwalls larger than the nominal 1-foot by 1-foot dimension are essentially retaining walls sharing a continuous base slab and should be designed for all relevant strength and service limit states and load combinations specified in LRFD Articles 3.4.1, and 11.5.5 and 11.6. The headwalls shall be designed to resist and/or absorb lateral earth loads, vehicular loads, creep, and temperature and shrinkage deformations of the concrete box culvert. The wall shall also be designed considering a live load surcharge equal to a uniform horizontal earth pressure due to an equivalent height of soil (heq) taken from the table below. For this culvert replacement, the live load surcharge is 250 psf which is equivalent to two feet of soil.

heq (feet)

Retaining

Wall Height (feet)

Distance from wall pressure surface to edge of traffic:

0 feet

Distance from wall pressure surface to edge of traffic:

> 1 feet 5 5.0 2.0 10 3.5 2.0

> 20 2.0 2.0 Culvert headwall sections that are fixed to the box culverts to resist movement should be designed using an at-rest earth pressure coefficient, Ko, of 0.5. Headwall sections that are

8


independent of the box culvert should be designed using the Rankine active earth pressure coefficient, Ka, equal to 0.31. This assumes level backslope. The earth pressure coefficient may change if backslope conditions are different. Footings for any headwall or wingwall constructed independently of the box culvert should be placed no less than 2 feet below the maximum anticipated depth of scour.

7.3 Box Culvert Bearing Resistance In our analysis we determined the factored bearing resistance at the strength limit state for the box culvert on compacted fill should not exceed 9.5 ksf. However, when analyzing box bottom slabs for the service limit state as allowed in LRFD C10.6.2.6.1., we determined that a factored bearing resistance of 2 ksf should be used to control settlement based on presumptive bearing resistance values. Thus in this case, the service limit state bearing resistance controls. In no instance shall the bearing stress exceed the nominal resistance of the structure concrete, which may be taken as 0.3 ƒ’c.

7.4 Settlement We have evaluated the potential for settlement at the Canaan site. MaineDOT currently plans to lower the vertical alignment grade about 6 inches. In addition, several feet of compressible clay-silt will be excavated and replaced as a result of planned construction. Thus, we estimate that total settlement will be negligible. We anticipate that any settlement that does occur will occur during construction and post-construction settlement will also be negligible. This assumes that the contractor exercises careful construction practices that minimize or prevent disturbance of the clay-silt subgrade soil

7.5 Scour Protection The box culvert will be fitted with integral concrete headwalls to prevent crushed stone slope protection from dropping or eroding into the waterway, and inlet and outlet section seepage cutoff walls below the culvert to provide scour protection per BDG 8.3.1. We recommend that the bridge approach slopes be armored with a 3-foot thick layer of riprap adjacent to the culvert openings. The riprap shall be underlain by a Class 1 erosion control geotextile and a 1-foot thick layer of bedding material conforming to Standard Specification 703.19, Granular Borrow for Underwater Backfill and as shown in Standard Detail 610(02). Riprap shall meet the requirements of 703.26, Plain and Hand Laid Riprap, of Special Provision 703, Aggregates. The riprap slopes should also be constructed in accordance with Special Provision 610, Stone Fill, Riprap, Stone Blanket, and Stone Ditch Protection and be constructed no steeper than a maximum 1.75:1 (H:V) extending from the edge of roadway down to the existing ground surface. The toe of riprap sections shall be constructed 1 foot below the streambed elevation.

9


7.6 Frost Protection We have evaluated the potential frost depth at the Canaan site. Based on State of Maine frost depth maps, MaineDOT Bridge Design Guide (BDG) Figure 5-1, the site has a design-freezing index of approximately 1710 F-degree days. Considering site soils and natural water contents, this correlates to a frost depth of 4.0 feet at this site. We also considered frost depth projections computed by Modberg software developed by the US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. The results of the Modberg frost depth model indicate a potential frost depth of 3.8 feet. Consequently, if spread footings are used, we recommend that any spread footing or leveling pads constructed at the site be founded a minimum of 4.0 feet below finished exterior grade for frost protection.

7.7 Seismic Design Considerations In accordance with LRFD Article 12.6.1, Loading, earthquake loading should only be considered where buried structures cross active faults. Since there are no known active faults in Maine, no seismic analysis is required.

7.8 Construction Considerations

7.8.1 Excavation Construction of the new concrete box culvert will require soil excavation. Earth support systems may be required. The native glaciomarine soils at the site will be susceptible to disturbance and rutting as a result of exposure to water or construction traffic. It is imperative that the contractor minimize aggressive excavation action or equipment movement over the clay-silt soil. This will disturb and/or soften the subgrade soil and may create stability problems or result in excessive settlement. We recommend that the contractor protect any subgrade from exposure to water and any unnecessary construction traffic. If disturbance and rutting occur, we recommend that the contractor remove and replace the disturbed materials with compacted gravel borrow. If encountered, unsuitable soils should also be excavated from the subgrade to a depth of one foot and replaced with compacted granular borrow. Granular borrow should conform to MaineDOT Standard Specification 703.19, Granular Borrow. The granular borrow should be compacted to 92 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (AASHTO T-180).

7.8.2 Dewatering The native soils within the project area are both poorly drained and moderately to highly frost susceptible. In some locations, these soil units may be saturated and significant water seepage may be encountered during excavation. The groundwater may be trapped in layers and lenses of coarse-grained soil overlying or between glaciomarine sediments. We anticipate that this seepage will be temporary but there may be localized sloughing and near-surface instability of some soil slopes.

10


The contractor should control groundwater and surface water infiltration to permit construction in-the-dry. We recommend that the contractor use cofferdams, temporary ditches, sumps, granular drainage blankets, stone ditch protection, or hand-laid riprap with geotextile underlayment to divert groundwater if significant seepage is encountered during construction. We also recommend using French drains daylighted to nearby ditches if significant seepage is encountered in the subgrade along the construction areas. If the amount of seepage is significant, we anticipate that pumping from sumps will likely be needed to control the water.

7.8.3 Reuse of Excavated Soil The project plans call for excavation of the existing approach areas to achieve planned grades. In the process, the contractor will excavate both the existing subbase gravel, and subgrade fill soils. We do not recommend using the excavated subbase aggregate to re-base the bridge approaches. Excavated subbase and subgrade sand and gravel may be used as fill below the roadway subgrade elevation in fill embankment areas provided all other requirements of MaineDOT Standard Specification Sections 203 and 703 are met. We do not recommend using any clay-silt soil excavation as fill beneath the pavement structure. This soil may be used as common borrow in accordance with MaineDOT Standard Specification Sections 203 and 703. Contractors should expect that, prior to placement and compaction, it may be necessary to spread out and dry portions of these soils that are excessively moist. This soil may also be used for dressing slopes, but only below the bottom elevation of the shoulder subbase gravel.

7.8.4 Embankment Fill Areas

The current project plans require construction of fill extensions along the bridge approaches. The plans indicate that the side slopes will be constructed to 1.75:1 (H:V) grades or flatter and will be armored with riprap. We recommend benching the existing fill slope soils in accordance with MaineDOT Standard Specification 203.09, Preparation of Embankment Area, where new fill slope extensions are constructed over existing slopes in preparation for construction of the riprap layer.

7.8.5 Erosion Control Recommendations

The fine-grained soils along the project are susceptible to erosion. We recommend using appropriate erosion control measures during construction as described in the MaineDOT Best Management Practices February 2008 guidelines to minimize erosion of the fine-grained soils at the site.

11


12

8.0 CLOSURE This report has been prepared for use by the MaineDOT Bridge Program for specific application to the replacement of the Haskell Bridge over Haskell Brook in Canaan, Maine. We have prepared the report in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other intended use or warranty is expressed or implied. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the proposed project are planned, this report should be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer to assess the appropriateness of the conclusions and recommendations and to modify the recommendations as appropriate to reflect the changes in design. Further, the analyses and recommendations are based in part upon limited soil explorations completed at discrete locations on the project site. If variations from the conditions encountered during the investigation appear evident during construction, it may also become necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations made in this report. We recommend that we be provided the opportunity for a general review of the final design drawings and specifications in order that we may verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design.

REFERENCES AASHTO, (2010), LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Fifth, AASHTO, Washington, D.C. Bowles, Joseph E. (1996), Foundation Analysis and Design, Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill,

New York, NY. MaineDOT, (2003), Bridge Design Guide, MaineDOT Bridge Program, Augusta, ME with

various Interims. Winterkorn, H.F., and Fang, H. (1975), Foundation Engineering Handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., New York, NY.

Sheets

terry.white

Typewritten Text

SHEET 1

terry.white

Oval

terry.white

Callout

Project Location

terry.white

Text Box

Haskell Bridge #3496 Carries Route 23 Over Haskell Brook Canaan, Maine PIN. 16692.00

Appendix A

Boring Logs

TERMS DESCRIBINGUNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DENSITY/CONSISTENCY

MAJOR DIVISIONSGROUP

SYMBOLS TYPICAL NAMESCoarse-grained soils (more than half of material is larger than No. 200

COARSE- CLEAN GW Well-graded gravels, gravel- sieve): Includes (1) clean gravels; (2) silty or clayey gravels; and (3) silty,GRAINED GRAVELS GRAVELS sand mixtures, little or no fines clayey or gravelly sands. Consistency is rated according to standard

SOILS penetration resistance.(little or no GP Poorly-graded gravels, gravel Modified Burmister System

fines) sand mixtures, little or no fines Descriptive Term Portion of Total trace 0% - 10%little 11% - 20%

GRAVEL GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt some 21% - 35%WITH mixtures. adjective (e.g. sandy, clayey) 36% - 50%FINES

(Appreciable GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay Density of Standard Penetration Resistance amount of mixtures. Cohesionless Soils N-Value (blows per foot)

fines) Very loose 0 - 4Loose 5 - 10

CLEAN SW Well-graded sands, gravelly Medium Dense 11 - 30SANDS SANDS sands, little or no fines Dense 31 - 50

Very Dense > 50(little or no SP Poorly-graded sands, gravelly

fines) sand, little or no fines.Fine-grained soils (more than half of material is smaller than No. 200

sieve): Includes (1) inorganic and organic silts and clays; (2) gravelly, sandySANDS SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures or silty clays; and (3) clayey silts. Consistency is rated according to shearWITH strength as indicated.FINES Approximate

(Appreciable SC Clayey sands, sand-clay Undrained amount of mixtures. Consistency of SPT N-Value Shear Field

fines) Cohesive soils blows per foot Strength (psf) Guidelines WOH, WOR,

ML Inorganic silts and very fine WOP, <2sands, rock flour, silty or clayey Soft 2 - 4 250 - 500 Thumb easily penetratesfine sands, or clayey silts with Medium Stiff 5 - 8 500 - 1000 Thumb penetrates with

SILTS AND CLAYS slight plasticity. moderate effortStiff 9 - 15 1000 - 2000 Indented by thumb with

FINE- CL Inorganic clays of low to medium great effortGRAINED plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy Very Stiff 16 - 30 2000 - 4000 Indented by thumbnai

SOILS clays, silty clays, lean clays. Hard >30 over 4000 Indented by thumbnail(liquid limit less than 50) with difficulty

OL Organic silts and organic silty Rock Quality Designation (RQD):

clays of low plasticity. RQD = sum of the lengths of intact pieces of core* > 100 mm length of core advance

*Minimum NQ rock core (1.88 in. OD of core)

MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or Correlation of RQD to Rock Mass Quality

SILTS AND CLAYS silty soils, elastic silts. Rock Mass Quality RQDVery Poor <25%

CH Inorganic clays of high Poor 26% - 50%plasticity, fat clays. Fair 51% - 75%

Good 76% - 90%(liquid limit greater than 50) OH Organic clays of medium to Excellent 91% - 100%

high plasticity, organic silts Desired Rock Observations: (in this order) Color (Munsell color chart) Texture (aphanitic, fine-grained, etc.)

HIGHLY ORGANIC Pt Peat and other highly organic Lithology (igneous, sedimentary, metamorphic, etc.) SOILS soils. Hardness (very hard, hard, mod. hard, etc.)

Weathering (fresh, very slight, slight, moderate, mod. severe,

Desired Soil Observations: (in this order) severe, etc.) Color (Munsell color chart) Geologic discontinuities/jointing:Moisture (dry, damp, moist, wet, saturated) -dip (horiz - 0-5, low angle - 5-35, mod. dipping - Density/Consistency (from above right hand side) 35-55, steep - 55-85, vertical - 85-90) Name (sand, silty sand, clay, etc., including portions - trace, little, etc.) -spacing (very close - <5 cm, close - 5-30 cm, mod.Gradation (well-graded, poorly-graded, uniform, etc.) close 30-100 cm, wide - 1-3 m, very wide >3 m)Plasticity (non-plastic, slightly plastic, moderately plastic, highly plastic) -tightness (tight, open or healed)Structure (layering, fractures, cracks, etc.) -infilling (grain size, color, etc.) Bonding (well, moderately, loosely, etc., if applicable) Formation (Waterville, Ellsworth, Cape Elizabeth, etc.) Cementation (weak, moderate, or strong, if applicable, ASTM D 2488) RQD and correlation to rock mass quality (very poor, poor, etc.) Geologic Origin (till, marine clay, alluvium, etc.) ref: AASHTO Standard Specification for Highway BridgesUnified Soil Classification Designation 17th Ed. Table 4.4.8.1.2AGroundwater level Recovery

Sample Container Labeling Requirements: PIN Blow Counts Bridge Name / Town Sample Recovery Boring Number DateSample Number Personnel Initials Sample Depth

0 - 250 Fist easily PenetratesVery Soft

(mor

e th

an h

alf o

f mat

eria

l is

smal

ler

than

No.

200

sie

ve s

ize)

(mor

e th

an h

alf o

f mat

eria

l is

larg

er th

an N

o. 2

00 s

ieve

siz

e)

(mor

e th

an h

alf o

f coa

rse

frac

tion

is la

rger

than

No.

4

siev

e si

ze)

(mor

e th

an h

alf o

f coa

rse

frac

tion

is s

mal

ler

than

No.

4

siev

e si

ze)

Maine Department of TransportationGeotechnical Section

Key to Soil and Rock Descriptions and TermsField Identification Information

January 2008

0

5

10

15

20

25

1D

2D/A

3D

4D

5DV1

6DV2

V3

7D

V4

V5

8DV6

V7

9D

V8

V9

24/17

24/17

24/15

24/24

1.00 - 3.00

3.00 - 5.00

5.00 - 7.00

7.50 - 9.50

10.00 - 12.0010.30 - 10.43

13.00 - 15.0013.60 - 14.03

14.60 - 15.03

15.50 - 17.50

16.10 - 16.53

17.10 - 17.53

18.00 - 20.0018.60 - 19.03

19.60 - 20.03

20.50 - 22.50

21.10 - 21.53

22.10 - 22.53

11/9/6/5

5/5/5/4

3/2/4/6

4/4/4/4

push thru vaneSu=2052/322 psf


Su=475/49 psf

push thru vane

Su=439/55 psf

Su=475/49 psf


Su=439/49 psf

push thru vane

Su=489/55 psf

Su=489/44 psf

15

10

6

8

---

---

---

---

---

21

14

8

11

SSA

WASHAHEAD

155.60

151.90

149.70

145.20

PAVEMENT.0.60

Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, fine to coarse SAND, trace tolittle gravel, some silt, (Fill).

(2D) 3.0-4.3' Same as above.

4.30(2DA) 4.3-5.0' and 3D, Grey-brown and brown, loose, fine to mediumSAND, some silt, (Glaciomarine).

6.50Changing at 6.5' bgs to brown, medium stiff, CLAY-SILT, trace finesand. Grey, fine to medium sand, little silt in tip of spoon,(Glaciomarine).

Brown and grey-brown, mottled, moist, stiff to very stiff, CLAY-SILT,with occasional partings and lenses of silt and fine sand throughout,slight to moderate plasticity, desiccated and over-consolidated, gradingto grey CLAY-SILT, (Glaciomarine).20x40 mm vane raw torque readings:V1: 25.5/4.0 in-lbs

11.00

Grey, wet, soft to medium stiff, CLAY-SILT, trace fine sand in seamsand partings, moderate plasticity, (Glaciomarine).65x130 mm vane raw torque readings:V2: 17.5/3.0 ft-lbsV3: 17.3/1.8 ft-lbs

65x130 mm vane raw torque readings:V4: 16.0/2.0 ft-lbsV5: 17.3/1.8 ft-lbs

One sand seam from 18.0-19.0' bgs.65x130 mm vane raw torque readings:V6: 16.0/1.1 ft-lbsV7: 16.0/1.8 ft-lbs

65x130 mm vane raw torque readings:V8: 17.8/2.0 ft-lbsV9: 17.8/1.6 ft-lbs

G#238221A-2-4, SMWC=9.1%

G#238222A-2-4, SMWC=8.6%G#238223A-2-4, SMWC=14.9%

G#238224A-7-6, CLWC=30.7

G#238225A-7-6, CL

WC=43.9%LL=42PL=21PI=21

G#237476A-7-6, CL

WC=40.2%LL=43PL=20PI=23

Maine Department of Transportation Project: Haskell Bridge #3496 carries Route 23 overHaskell Brook

Boring No.: BB-CHB-101Soil/Rock Exploration Log

Location: Canaan, MaineUS CUSTOMARY UNITS PIN: 16692.00

Driller: MaineDOT Elevation (ft.) 156.2 Auger ID/OD: 5" Solid Stem

Operator: Giguere/Giles Datum: NAVD 88 Sampler: Standard Split Spoon

Logged By: Be Schonewald Rig Type: CME 45C Hammer Wt./Fall: 140#/30"

Date Start/Finish: 4/6/10; 08:30-12:30 Drilling Method: SSA and Cased Wash Boring Core Barrel: N/A

Boring Location: 19+78.7, 9.6 Rt. Casing ID/OD: NW Water Level*: greater than 10.0' bgs.

Hammer Efficiency Factor: 0.84 Hammer Type: Automatic Hydraulic Rope & Cathead Definitions: R = Rock Core Sample Su = Insitu Field Vane Shear Strength (psf) Su(lab) = Lab Vane Shear Strength (psf)D = Split Spoon Sample SSA = Solid Stem Auger Tv = Pocket Torvane Shear Strength (psf) WC = water content, percentMD = Unsuccessful Split Spoon Sample attempt HSA = Hollow Stem Auger qp = Unconfined Compressive Strength (ksf) LL = Liquid LimitU = Thin Wall Tube Sample RC = Roller Cone N-uncorrected = Raw field SPT N-value PL = Plastic LimitMU = Unsuccessful Thin Wall Tube Sample attempt WOH = weight of 140lb. hammer Hammer Efficiency Factor = Annual Calibration Value PI = Plasticity IndexV = Insitu Vane Shear Test, PP = Pocket Penetrometer WOR/C = weight of rods or casing N60 = SPT N-uncorrected corrected for hammer efficiency G = Grain Size AnalysisMV = Unsuccessful Insitu Vane Shear Test attempt WO1P = Weight of one person N60 = (Hammer Efficiency Factor/60%)*N-uncorrected C = Consolidation Test

Remarks:

Stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types; transitions may be gradual.

* Water level readings have been made at times and under conditions stated. Groundwater fluctuations may occur due to conditions otherthan those present at the time measurements were made. Boring No.: BB-CHB-101

Dep

th (

ft.)

Sam

ple

No.

Sample Information

Pen

./Rec

. (in

.)

Sam

ple

Dep

th(f

t.)

Blo

ws

(/6

in.)

She

arS

tren

gth

(psf

)o

r R

QD

(%

)

N-u

ncor

rect

ed

N6

0

Ca

sin

g

Blo

ws

Ele

vatio

n(f

t.)

Gra

phic

Log

Visual Description and Remarks

LaboratoryTesting Results/

AASHTO and

Unified Class.

Page 1 of 2

25

30

35

40

45

50

10D

V10

V11

11D

12D

13D

24/17

24/16

24/18

25.50 - 27.50

26.10 - 26.53

27.10 - 27.53

30.00 - 32.00

35.00 - 37.00

40.00 - 42.00

push thru vane

Su=544/55 psf

Su=709/55 psf

3/3/2/2

5/4/5/6

5/4/6/8

---

5

9

10

7

13

14

29

9

13

22

29

28

12

8

13

19

24

127.20

122.70

114.20

Grey, wet, soft to medium stiff, CLAY-SILT, trace fine sand in seamsand partings, moderate plasticity, (Glaciomarine).65x130 mm vane raw torque readings:V10: 19.8/2.0 ft-lbsTwo sand seams 26.5 to 27.5' bgs.V11: 25.8/2.0 ft-lbs

29.00

Grey, wet, loose, fine to medium SAND, little silt, with 4" seam of finesand, some silt at bottom of spoon.

33.50

Grey, wet, medium dense, fine to medium SAND, little silt.

Grey, wet, medium dense, fine to medium SAND, little silt.

42.00Bottom of Exploration at 42.00 feet below ground surface.

NO REFUSAL




Driller: MaineDOT Elevation (ft.) 156.2 Auger ID/OD: 5" Solid Stem



Date Start/Finish: 4/6/10; 08:30-12:30 Drilling Method: SSA and Cased Wash Boring Core Barrel: N/A

Boring Location: 19+78.7, 9.6 Rt. Casing ID/OD: NW Water Level*: greater than 10.0' bgs.


Remarks:



Dep

th (

ft.)

Sam

ple

No.

Sample Information

Pen

./Rec

. (in

.)

Sam

ple

Dep

th(f

t.)

Blo

ws

(/6

in.)

She

arS

tren

gth

(psf

)o

r R

QD

(%

)

N-u

ncor

rect

ed

N6

0

Ca

sin

g

Blo

ws

Ele

vatio

n(f

t.)

Gra

phic

Log



AASHTO and

Unified Class.

Page 2 of 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

1D

2D

3D

4MD

5D

6D

MV/7D

8D

MV/9D

18/12

24/12

24/6

24/0

24/20

24/10

24/10

24/14

24/15

1.00 - 2.50

3.00 - 5.00

5.00 - 7.00

7.50 - 9.50

10.00 - 12.00

12.50 - 14.50

15.50 - 17.50

17.50 - 19.50

20.50 - 22.50

10/11/11

3/11/14/14

7/19/9/5

1/1/2/8

2/3/3/5

3/1/2/2

2/3/3/2

2/1 (18")

WOH/WOH/3/7

22

25

28

3

6

3

6

1

3

31

35

39

4

8

4

8

1

4

SSA

WASHAHEAD

32

37

57

67

154.30

152.20

145.70

143.20

134.00

PAVEMENT.

0.90Brown, damp, dense, fine to coarse SAND, little gravel and silt, (Fill).

3.00Grey-brown and brown, damp to moist, dense, gravelly fine to coarseSAND, trace silt, (Fill).

Difficult drilling from 4.0-9.0', drill behavior suggests cobbly material.

Failed sample attempt, no recovery, gravelly SAND, (Fill) based onauger cuttings.

9.50

Brown-grey, wet, medium stiff, fine to medium sandy SILT, withpockets of organic matter and seams of siltier material, (Glaciomarine).

12.00STRATIFIED Glaciomarine CLAY-SILTS and SANDS 12' to 21.2'bgs.

Driller notes organic layer, approximately 6" thick at 12.0' bgs.Grey, wet, soft, CLAY-SILT, trace fine sand, changing at approximately13.0' to grey, very loose, fine SAND, trace silt, (Glaciomarine).

Failed vane attempt, could not push.Grey, wet, loose, fine SAND, trace silt, (Glaciomarine).

Upper 6" sample: Grey, wet, very loose, fine SAND, trace silt. Bottom 8"sample: Grey, wet, very soft CLAY-SILT with one 2" seam of fine sand,trace silt, (Glaciomarine).

Failed vane attempt, could not push.Upper 10" sample: Grey,wet, soft, CLAY SILT, some fine sand and one1" seam of fine sand, trace silt. Bottom 5" sample: Grey, wet, very loose,fine SAND, trace silt, (Glaciomarine).

21.20

Driller notes possible stratum change at 21.2', likely change to fine sandobserved in spoon sample 9D.

G#237478A-1-b, SMWC=4.7%

G#237479A-4, ML

WC=48.0%




Driller: MaineDOT Elevation (ft.) 155.2 Auger ID/OD: 3.5" Solid Stem



Date Start/Finish: 4/6/10-4/7/10 Drilling Method: SSA and Cased Wash Boring Core Barrel: N/A

Boring Location: 20+21, 7.0 Lt. Casing ID/OD: NW Water Level*: 7.2' bgs.


Remarks:



Dep

th (

ft.)

Sam

ple

No.

Sample Information

Pen

./Rec

. (in

.)

Sam

ple

Dep

th(f

t.)

Blo

ws

(/6

in.)

She

arS

tren

gth

(psf

)o

r R

QD

(%

)

N-u

ncor

rect

ed

N6

0

Ca

sin

g

Blo

ws

Ele

vatio

n(f

t.)

Gra

phic

Log



AASHTO and

Unified Class.

Page 1 of 2

25

30

35

40

45

50

10D

11D

12D

13D

24/16

24/14

24/21

24/16

25.00 - 27.00

30.00 - 32.00

35.00 - 37.00

40.00 - 42.00

5/6/6/7

1/2/3/2

WOH/1/2/2

WOH/2/6/11

12

5

3

8

17

7

4

11

43

44

48

51

61

57

50

56

80

86

58

59

70

71

89

126.70

116.70

113.20

Grey, wet, medium dense, fine to medium SAND, some silt, with one 2"seam of silty fine sand, (Glaciomarine).

28.50

Grey, wet, loose, fine to medium SAND, trace to little silt,(Glaciomarine).

Grey, wet, very loose, fine to medium SAND, trace to little silt,(Glaciomarine).

38.50

Grey, wet, medium dense, fine to medium SAND, trace to little gravel,trace coarse sand, trace silt, piece of rounded gravel in tip of spoon,(Glaciomarine).

42.00Bottom of Exploration at 42.00 feet below ground surface.

NO REFUSAL

G#237480A-2-4, SMWC=20.9%




Driller: MaineDOT Elevation (ft.) 155.2 Auger ID/OD: 3.5" Solid Stem



Date Start/Finish: 4/6/10-4/7/10 Drilling Method: SSA and Cased Wash Boring Core Barrel: N/A

Boring Location: 20+21, 7.0 Lt. Casing ID/OD: NW Water Level*: 7.2' bgs.


Remarks:



Dep

th (

ft.)

Sam

ple

No.

Sample Information

Pen

./Rec

. (in

.)

Sam

ple

Dep

th(f

t.)

Blo

ws

(/6

in.)

She

arS

tren

gth

(psf

)o

r R

QD

(%

)

N-u

ncor

rect

ed

N6

0

Ca

sin

g

Blo

ws

Ele

vatio

n(f

t.)

Gra

phic

Log



AASHTO and

Unified Class.

Page 2 of 2

Appendix B

Laboratory Test Data

Station Offset Depth Reference G.S.D.C. W.C. L.L. P.I.

(Feet) (Feet) (Feet) Number Sheet % Unified AASHTO Frost

19+78.7 9.6 Rt. 1.0-3.0 238221 1 9.1 SM A-2-4 II

19+78.7 9.6 Rt. 3.0-4.3 238222 1 8.6 SM A-2-4 II

19+78.7 9.6 Rt. 4.3-5.0 238223 1 14.9 SM A-2-4 II

19+78.7 9.6 Rt. 7.5-9.5 238224 2 30.7 CL A-7-6 III

19+78.7 9.6 Rt. 15.5-17.5 238225 2 43.9 42 21 CL A-7-6 III

19+78.7 9.6 Rt. 18.0-20.0 237476 2 40.2 43 23 CL A-7-6 III

20+21 7.0 Lt. 1.0-2.5 237478 3 4.7 SM A-1-b II

20+21 7.0 Lt. 10.0-12.0 237479 3 48.0 ML A-4 IV

20+21 7.0 Lt. 25.0-27.0 237480 3 20.9 SM A-2-4 II

20+21 7.0 Lt. 10.0-12.0 237479 3

Classification of these soil samples is in accordance with AASHTO Classification System M-145-40. This classification

is followed by the "Frost Susceptibility Rating" from zero (non-frost susceptible) to Class IV (highly frost susceptible).

The "Frost Susceptibility Rating" is based upon the MaineDOT and Corps of Engineers Classification Systems.

GSDC = Grain Size Distribution Curve as determined by AASHTO T 88-93 (1996) and/or ASTM D 422-63 (Reapproved 1998)

WC = water content as determined by AASHTO T 265-93 and/or ASTM D 2216-98

LL = Liquid limit as determined by AASHTO T 89-96 and/or ASTM D 4318-98

PI = Plasticity Index as determined by AASHTO 90-96 and/or ASTM D4318-98

BB-CHB-102, 5D

BB-CHB-101, 2D/A

BB-CHB-101, 8D

Identification Number

BB-CHB-101, 1D

BB-CHB-101, 2D

BB-CHB-102, 1D

BB-CHB-101, 4D

BB-CHB-101, 7D

Loss on Ignition (T 267)

Loss % H2O %

6.5 43.9

BB-CHB-102, 5D

BB-CHB-102, 10D

State of Maine - Department of Transportation

Laboratory Testing Summary Sheet

Town(s): CanaanBoring & Sample

Project Number: 16692.00Classification

1 of 1

3"

2"1-1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

1/4"

#4

#8

#10

#16

#20

#40

#60

#100

#200

0.05

0.03

0.010

0.005

0.001

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.05

12.7

9.53

6.35

4.75

2.36

2.00

1.18

0.85

0.426

0.25

0.15

0.075

0.05

0.03

0.005

GRAVEL

SAND

SILT

SIEVE ANALYSIS

US Standard Sieve Numbers

HYDROMETER ANALYSIS

Grain Diameter, mm

State of Maine Department of Transportation

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTIO

N CURVE

100

10

10.1

0.01

0.001

Grain Diameter, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent Finer by Weight

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Percent Retained by Weight

CLAY

SHEET NO.

UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION

SAND, some silt, little gravel.

SAND, some silt.

SAND, some silt, trace gravel.

9.1

8.6

14.9

BB-CHB-101/1D

BB-CHB-101/2D

BB-CHB-101/2DA

1.0-3.0

3.0-4.3

4.3-5.0

Depth, ft

Boring/Sample No.

Description

W, %

LL

PL

PI

� ��

SHEET 1

Canaan

016692.00

WHITE, TERRY A 6/21/2010

PIN

Town

Reported by/Date

9.6 RT

9.6 RT

9.6 RT

Offset, ft

19+78.7

19+78.7

19+78.7

Station

3"

2"1-1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

1/4"

#4

#8

#10

#16

#20

#40

#60

#100

#200

0.05

0.03

0.010

0.005

0.001

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.05

12.7

9.53

6.35

4.75

2.36

2.00

1.18

0.85

0.426

0.25

0.15

0.075

0.05

0.03

0.005

GRAVEL

SAND

SILT

SIEVE ANALYSIS


HYDROMETER ANALYSIS

Grain Diameter, mm



N CURVE

100

10

10.1

0.01

0.001

Grain Diameter, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0


CLAY

SHEET NO.


CLAY-SILT, trace sand.



30.7

43.9

40.2

42

43

21

20

21

23

BB-CHB-101/4D

BB-CHB-101/7D

BB-CHB-101/8D

7.5-9.0

15.5-17.5

18.0-20.0

Depth, ft

Boring/Sample No.

Description

W, %

LL

PL

PI

� ��

SHEET 2

Canaan

016692.00


PIN

Town

Reported by/Date

9.6 RT

9.6 RT

9.6 RT

Offset, ft

19+78.7

19+78.7

19+78.7

Station

3"

2"1-1/2"

1"

3/4"

1/2"

3/8"

1/4"

#4

#8

#10

#16

#20

#40

#60

#100

#200

0.05

0.03

0.010

0.005

0.001

76.2

50.8

38.1

25.4

19.05

12.7

9.53

6.35

4.75

2.36

2.00

1.18

0.85

0.426

0.25

0.15

0.075

0.05

0.03

0.005

GRAVEL

SAND

SILT

SIEVE ANALYSIS


HYDROMETER ANALYSIS

Grain Diameter, mm



N CURVE

100

10

10.1

0.01

0.001

Grain Diameter, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0


CLAY

SHEET NO.


SAND, little gravel, little silt.

SAND, some silt.

Sandy SILT.

4.7

48.0

20.9

BB-CHB-102/1D

BB-CHB-102/5D

BB-CHB-102/10D

1.0-2.5

10.0-12.0

25.0-27.0

Depth, ft

Boring/Sample No.

Description

W, %

LL

PL

PI

� ��

SHEET 3

Canaan

016692.00


PIN

Town

Reported by/Date

7.0 LT

7.0 LT

7.0 LT

Offset, ft

20+21

20+21

20+21

Station

Appendix C

Calculations

Haskell BridgeOver Haskell BrookCanaant, MainePIN 16692

By: Mike MoreauNovember 2010

Checked by:__LK__ Dec 2010

HEADWALL ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE:

Rankine Theory - Active Earth Pressure from MaineDOT Bridge Design GuideSection 3.6.5.2, pg. 3-7

Either Rankine or Coulomb may be used for long-heeled cantilever walls where the failure surface isuninterrupted by the top of the wall stem. In general, use Rankine though.

Soil angle of internalfriction:

ϕ 32deg

Slope angle of backfill soil fromhorizontal:

β 0deg

Ka tan 45degϕ

2

2

Ka 0.31

FROST PROTECTIONMethod 1:

From the Maine Design Freezing Index Map: DFI = 1710 degree-daysSite has Fine Grained Soils With Wn 30%

From the 2003 Bridge Design Guide Table 5-1:

Frost_depth 0.1 49.8in 48.4in( ) 48.4in[ ]

Frost_depth 48.54 in

Frost_depth 4.04 ft

Method 2:

Use 4.0 feet

1




BEARING RESISTANCE ON COMPACTED FILL SOILS:Consider this for use with Box Culverts, Headwalls and Wingwalls.

SERVICE LIMIT STATE:

LRFD Table C10.6.2.6.1-1, Pg. 10-66 (Based on NAVFAC DM 7.2) - "Presumptive Bearing Resistances forSpread Footing Foundations at the Service Limit State"

Bearing Material Consistency in Place Bearing Resistance Recommended(kips per sq. foot) Value

Inorganic Silt, Very stiff to hard 4 to 8 4 ksfSandy or Clayey Silt, Medium stiff to stiff 2 to 6 2 ksfVarved Silt-Clay-Fine Sand Soft 1 to 2 1 ksf

Recommend 2.0 ksf to control settlements for Service LimitState analyses and for preliminary footing sizing.

STRENGTH LIMIT STATE:

Nominal and Factored Bearing Resistance for box culvert and retaining wall base slab on fillsoils at the Strength Limit State:

Assumptions:

1. Box Culvert will be embedded 2.0 feet for streambed simulation.

Df 2.0ft

2. Assumed parameters for soils: Assume granular fill

Moist unit weight: γm 125pcf

Saturated unit weight: γsat 130pcf

Soil angle of internal friction: ϕns 28

Undrained shear strength (cohesion): cns 450psf

3. Use Terzaghi strip equations as L > B

Depth to Groundwater table based on boring data: Dw 0 ft

2




Unit weight of water: γw 62.4pcf

Effective Stress at the footing bearing level: qeff_str Dw γm Df Dw γsat γw

qeff_str 0.14 ksf

Box Culvert Width:B 20ft

Terzaghi Shape Factors from Table 4-1, p. 220For strip footing:

sc 1.0

sγ 1.0

Meyerhof Bearing Capacity Factors For = 28 deg Bowles 5th Ed. Table 4-4 pg. 223

Nc 25.79 Nq 14.7 Nγ 11.2

Nominal Bearing Resistance per Terzaghi equation Bowles 5th Ed. Table 4-1 pg. 220

qnom cns Nc sc qeff_str Nq 0.5 γsat γw B Nγ sγ

qnom 21.2 ksf

Resistance Factor from LRFD Table 10.5.5.2.2-1 pg. 10-32: ϕb 0.45

qfac qnom ϕb

The Strength Limit State Factored BearingResistance is 9.5 ksf for the box culvert.

qfac 9.5 ksf

For this project settlement controls. Recommend 2.0 ksfFactored Bearing Resistance for box culvert design.

3

Appendix D

Special Provision

December 17, 2009 Supersedes November 28, 2007

SPECIAL PROVISION SECTION 534

PRECAST STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (Precast Structural Concrete Arches, Box Culverts)

534.10 Description The Contractor shall design, manufacture, furnish, and install elements, precast structural concrete structures, arches, or box culverts and associated wings, headwalls, and appurtenances, in accordance with the contract documents. 534.20 Materials Structural precast elements for the arch or box culvert and associated precast elements shall meet the requirements of the following Subsection:

Structural Precast Concrete Units 712.061 Grout, concrete patching material, and geotextiles shall be one of the products listed on the Department's list of prequalified materials, unless otherwise approved by the Department. Box culvert bedding and backfill material shall consist of Standard Specification 703.19, Granular Borrow, Material for Underwater Backfill, with the additional requirement that the maximum particle size be limited to 4 inches, or as shown on the plans. 534.30 Design Requirements The Contractor shall design the precast structural concrete structure in accordance with the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, current edition. The design live load shall be as follows: *modified HL-93 Strength I for LRFD method. *(modify HL-93 by increasing all wheel loads by a factor of 1.25) The Contractor shall submit design calculations and shop drawings for the precast structure to the Department for approval. A Registered Professional Engineer, licensed in accordance with State of Maine laws, shall sign and seal all design calculations and drawings. The Contractor shall submit a bridge rating on the Department's Standard Bridge Rating Summary Sheet with the design calculations. Drawings shall conform with Section 105.7 - Working Drawings. The Contractor shall submit the following items for review by the Resident at least ten working days prior to production:

A) The name and location of the manufacturer. B) Method of manufacture and material certificates. C) Description of method of handling, storing, transporting, and erecting the members. D) Shop Drawings with the following minimum details:

1) Fully dimensioned views showing the geometry of the members, including all projections, recesses, notches, openings, block outs, and keyways. 2) Details and bending schedules of reinforcing steel including the size, spacing, and location. Reinforcing provided under lifting devices shall be shown in detail. 3) Details and locations of all items to be embedded.

Page 1 of 4


4) Total mass (weight) of each member. 534.40 Construction Requirements The applicable provisions of Subsection 535.10 - Forms and Casting Beds and Subsection 535.20 – Finishing Concrete and Repairing Defects shall be met. Manufacture of Precast Units The internal dimensions shall not vary by more than 1 percent from the design dimensions or 38 mm [1 ½ in], whichever is less. The haunch dimensions shall not vary by more than 19 mm [¾ in] from the design dimension. The dimension of the legs shall not vary by more than 6 mm [¼ in] from the dimension shown on the approved shop drawings. The slab and wall thickness shall not be less than the design thickness by more than 6 mm [¼ in]. A thickness greater than the design thickness shall not be cause for rejection. Variations in laying lengths of two opposite surfaces shall not be more than 15 mm [⅝ in] in any section, except where beveled ends for laying of curves are specified. The under-run in length of any section shall not be more than 12 mm [½ in]. The cover of concrete over the outside circumferential reinforcement shall be 50 mm [2 in] minimum. The concrete cover over the inside reinforcement shall be 38 mm [1 ½ in] minimum. The clear distance of the end of circumferential wires shall not be less than 25 mm [1 in] or more than 50 mm [2 in] from the end of the sections. Reinforcement shall be single or multiple layers of welded wire fabric or a single layer of deformed billet steel bars. Welded wire fabric shall meet the space requirements and contain sufficient longitudinal wires extending through the section to maintain the shape and position of the reinforcement. Longitudinal distribution reinforcement may be welded wire fabric or deformed billet steel bars which meet the spacing requirements. The ends of the longitudinal distribution reinforcement shall be not more than 75 mm [3 in] from the ends of the sections. The inside circumferential reinforcing steel for the haunch radii or fillet shall be bent to match the radii or fillets of the forms. Tension splices in the reinforcement will not be permitted. For splices other than tension splices, the overlap shall be a minimum of 300 mm [12 in] for welded wire fabric or billet steel bars. The spacing center to center of the circumferential wires in a wire fabric sheet shall be not less than 50 mm [2 in] or more than 100 mm [4 in]. For the wire fabric, the spacing center to center of the longitudinal wires shall not be more than 200 mm [8 in]. The spacing center to center of the longitudinal distribution steel for either line of reinforcing in the top slab shall be not more than 375 mm [15 in]. The members shall be free of fractures. The ends of the members shall be normal to the walls and centerline of the section, within the limits of variation provided, except where beveled ends are specified. The surfaces of the members shall be a smooth steel form or troweled

Page 2 of 4


surface finish, unless a form liner is specified. The ends and interior of the assembled structure shall make a continuous line of members with a smooth interior surface. Defects which may cause rejection of precast units include the following:

1) Any discontinuity (crack or rock pocket etc.) of the concrete which could allow moisture to reach the reinforcing steel. 2) Rock pockets or honeycomb over 4000 mm² [6 in²] in area or over 25 mm [1 in] deep. 3) Edge or corner breakage exceeding 300 mm [12 in] in length or 25 mm [1 in] in depth. 4) Extensive fine hair cracks or checks. 5) Any other defect that clearly and substantially impacts the quality, durability, or maintainability of the structure as measured by accepted industry standards.

The Contractor shall store and transport members in a manner to prevent cracking or damage. The Contractor shall not place precast members in an upright position until a compressive strength of at least 30 MPa [4350 psi] is attained. Installation of Precast Units The Contractor shall not ship precast members until sufficient strength has been attained to withstand shipping, handling and erection stresses without cracking, deformation, or spalling (but in no case less than 30 MPa [4350 psi]. The Contractor shall set precast members on 12 mm [½ in] neoprene pads during shipment to prevent damage to the section legs. The Contractor shall repair any damage to precast members resulting from shipping or handling by saw cutting a minimum of 12 mm [½ in] deep around the perimeter of the damaged area and placing a polymer-modified cementitious patching material. When footings are required, the Contractor shall install the precast members on concrete footings that have reached a compressive strength of at least 20 MPa [2900 psi]. The Contractor shall construct the completed footing surface to the lines and grades shown on the plans. When checked with a 3 m [10 ft] straightedge, the surface shall not vary more than 6 mm [¼ in] in 3 meters [10 ft]. The footing keyway shall be filled with a non-shrink flowable cementitious grout with a design compressive strength of at least 35 MPa [5075 psi]. The Contractor shall fill holes that were cast in the units for handling, with either Portland cement mortar, or with precast plugs secured with Portland cement mortar or other approved adhesive. The Contractor shall completely fill the exterior face of joints between precast members with an approved material and cover with a minimum 300 mm [12 in] wide joint wrap. The surface shall be free of dirt and deleterious materials before applying the filler material and joint wrap. The Contractor shall install the external wrap in one continuous piece over each member joint, taking care to keep the joint wrap in place during backfilling. The Contractor shall seal the joints between the end unit and attached elements with a non-woven geotextile. The Contractor shall install and tighten the bolts fastening the connection plate(s) between the elements that are designed to be fastened together as designated by the manufacturer. Final assembly shall be approved by the manufacturer’s representative prior to backfilling.

Page 3 of 4


Page 4 of 4

The Contractor shall place and compact the bedding material as shown on the plans prior to lifting and setting the box culvert sections. The Contractor shall backfill the structure in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and the Contract Documents. The Contractor shall uniformly distribute backfill material in layers of not more than 200 mm [8 in] depth, loose measure, and thoroughly compact each layer using approved compactors before successive layers are placed. The Contractor shall compact the Granular Borrow bedding and backfill in accordance with Section 203.12 - Construction of Earth Embankment with Moisture and Density Control, except that the minimum required compaction shall be 92 percent of maximum density as determined by AASHTO T180, Method C or D. The Contractor shall place and compact backfill without disturbance or displacement of the wall units, keeping the fill at approximately the same elevation on both sides of the structure. Whenever a compaction test fails, the Contractor shall not place additional backfill over the area until the lift is re-compacted and a passing test achieved. The Contractor shall use hand-operated compactors within 1.5 m [5 ft] of the precast structure as well as over the top until it is covered with at least 300 mm [12 in] of backfill. Equipment in excess of 11 Mg [12 ton] shall not use the structure until a minimum of 600 mm [24 in] of backfill cover is in place and compacted. 534.50 Method of Measurement The Department will measure Precast Structural Concrete Arch or Box Culvert for payment per Lump Sum each, complete in place and accepted. 534.60 Basis of Payment The Department will pay for the accepted quantity of Precast Structural Concrete Arch or Box Culvert at the Contract Lump Sum price, such payment being full compensation for all labor, equipment, materials, professional services, and incidentals for furnishing and installing the precast concrete elements and accessories. Falsework, reinforcing steel, jointing tape, grout, cast-in-place concrete fill or grout fill for anchorage of precast wings and/or other appurtenances is incidental to the Lump Sum pay item. Cast-in-place concrete, reinforcing steel in cast-in-place elements, excavation, backfill material, and membrane waterproofing will be measured and paid for separately under the provided Contract pay items. Pay adjustments for quality level will not be made for precast concrete. Payment will be made under: Pay Item Pay Unit 534.71 Precast Concrete Box Culvert Lump Sum